Apple Releases Dual Core PowerMac G5s

[wrldwzrd89]

Yes, but 8 "logical processors" is something of an illusion to the OS--it's not at all the same as having 8 actual processors or cores. It does sometimes offer SOME benefit, running two threads at once on each CPU (or core)--but nothing that puts it in a different league from a 4-CPU non-HT machine.

HT experts, please chime in 🙂

HyperThreading (generically known as Simultaneous Multi-Threading, or SMT) is nothing more than a technique for keeping a processor busier by making more efficient use of its available execution resources. The technique seems to work best dividing one physical processor into two logical processors.

You are correct on the performance side of things - generally speaking, doubling the number of CPUs increases performance by about 50-80% (not 100% due to overhead). Adding SMT to the mix gives an additional 20-50% boost, on average (Intel's HyperThreading is an early implementation, which doesn't live up to the full potential of SMT to increase performance - Intel will fix these issues with time).

 

[rolandf]

Apple should keep PowerPC

Apple should keep the Power(PC) processors also for their future machines.

As they provide big portions of pro-software made in-house, it should not be such a problem to have the
Intel and AMD as well IBM platforms served.

 

[jaduffy108]

huh?

Apple doesn't have to make a choice. If they want to use AMD someday they can. Meanwhile there's marketing value to the Intel relationship--and Intel WANTS Apple (they've said so repeatedly over the years) so that may have pricing benefits.

But the choice should NOT be made on "who's fastest this month." And it SHOULD be made on future technologies, not on today's. Yes, that means uncertainty, but that can't be helped. THIS time, if Intel is late, most other PCs are in the same boat WITH Apple.

Also, some have said that AMD could have trouble delivering in the quantities Apple needs. Apple is one of the biggest PC makers after all. Not sure if that's a fair concern... but I know that HAS been a problem with Moto and IBM. Intel's sheer size helps in that regard.

And it's not as though everything AMD does (today) is better than Intel. Intel has some great technologies, like the Pentium M (plus Intel makes whole chipsets). Both chip makers have their cheerleaders, but for now I'm content with letting Apple select whatever's fastest and cheapest and available in quantity. And late or not, I DO like Intel's roadmap.

Lastly, I could care less about Intel STOCK performance. So some analysts estimated a penny too high--so what? I care about their technology. Same goes for Apple, in fact, since I invest in neither. If a company makes a huge profit, but LESS huge than some outsider predicted, it doesn't make me worry that I should be using some other technology.




>>>sorry, but your response shows you are VERY uninformed....and contradicts itself. Won't bother any further...

peace

 

[Tastannin]

One thing I'm wondering regarding the announcement of dual core G5's from Apple - is when will the xServes be updated to match? I'd think that the xServes would benefit from these chips and the new architecture, especially the larger cache, cooling, and the PCIe slots. I can imagine the Cluster Node version going Quad! 🙂

 

[Evangelion]

Also, some have said that AMD could have trouble delivering in the quantities Apple needs. Apple is one of the biggest PC makers after all. Not sure if that's a fair concern... but I know that HAS been a problem with Moto and IBM. Intel's sheer size helps in that regard.

IIRC, with it's new fab, and third-party partners, AMD has the capacity to make close to 100 million CPU's a year. I don't see Apple selling that many systems quite yet 😉

 

[nagromme]

IIRC, with it's new fab, and third-party partners, AMD has the capacity to make close to 100 million CPU's a year. I don't see Apple selling that many systems quite yet 😉

Good to hear! I wouldn't mind (and in fact, fully expect) Apple to have some AMD chips in the mix in the future. Two suppliers are better than one.

>>>sorry, but your response shows you are VERY uninformed....and contradicts itself. Won't bother any further...

I can only assume you mis-read what I wrote, then. AMD and Intel BOTH have their strengths, and I don't pretend to be a technical expert on them. But you say there is "no doubt Apple goofed" in choosing Intel, and I don't think it's as clear-cut as that. I'd be interested to hear more about why you're certain the Intel choice has to be the wrong one.

 

[Zoowatch]

new PowerMacs are great, but...

i just hope that Apple has solved the noisy fan problem

some PowerMacs I've seem to roar quite loudly
even for simple processes the fans run at the highest speed

 

[minimax]

Disinformation all around

HyperThreading (generically known as Simultaneous Multi-Threading, or SMT) is nothing more than a technique for keeping a processor busier by making more efficient use of its available execution resources. The technique seems to work best dividing one physical processor into two logical processors.

You are correct on the performance side of things - generally speaking, doubling the number of CPUs increases performance by about 50-80% (not 100% due to overhead). Adding SMT to the mix gives an additional 20-50% boost, on average (Intel's HyperThreading is an early implementation, which doesn't live up to the full potential of SMT to increase performance - Intel will fix these issues with time).

Have you actually seen HT enabled versus HT disabled P4 benchmarks? On average the HT enabled is slower. There are a few very specified applications that can take advantage of it, and would give it a few percent (the 30% figure is claimed by intel, nobody has witnessed it 🙄 ) increase in performance. Remember it is not an actual second instruction infrastructure, just a measure to fill the gaps within the incredible long pipeline of the P4

Oh, and could people please stop the disinformation campaign of AMD not been able to deliver reliably to Apple. I don't know who in the name of God brought this theory upon us but it is not corresponding to reality.
AMD not only sells almost 8x as much processors as IBM / Freescale combined but they also have MASSIVE spare capacity, with the recently opened new Fab. Apple does not equal Dell 🙄

 

[BGil]

Have you actually seen HT enabled versus HT disabled P4 benchmarks? On average the HT enabled is slower. There are a few very specified applications that can take advantage of it, and would give it a few percent (the 30% figure is claimed by intel, nobody has witnessed it 🙄 ) increase in performance. Remember it is not an actual second instruction infrastructure, just a measure to fill the gaps within the incredible long pipeline of the P4

I've seen and personally ran some of those benchmarks. HT is always faster
in the apps I use and tested. That's After Effects, Premiere 6.5 and PPRO, Vegas 5/6, Photoshop CS/CS2, Nero ripping and encoding, LAME, and WinRAR. Not to mention the entire system is more responsive due to a semi-SMP effect. I've never seen a benchmark in the last two years that is slower with HT enabled. On average I'd say the difference is about 20% running a single app and often over 80% when running multitasking tests.
I ran the tests on a 3.6ghz Prescott.

 

[AidenShaw]

ymmv

On average the HT enabled is slower.

HT is always faster in the apps I use and tested.

In most cases, HT will be faster on a single core system. You have the chance for parallelism, with little downside.

If you have more than one core, however, you have the situation where two active threads might be scheduled on logical CPUs that are in the same core - leaving the second core idle.

This will have much worse performance. Some systems are better as scheduling threads than others, but they'll all see this to some degree.

My rule-of-thumb is to enable HT on single-core systems. On multi-core systems, if I typically have more active threads than cores, I'll turn it on. If I have fewer threads, I'll disable HT

 

[Bregalad]

Observations

I can't tell whether the new dual core machines are air or liquid cooled, but the new DC2.0GHz machine has a warning message in front of the fans: "If you see liquid, unplug computer and consult manual".

As for PCI-X versus PCI express, Apple has to move with the times. This forum would be full of complaints if they HADN'T upgraded the logic boards. Apple quite rightly believes that anyone who needs a G5 already owns one; they've been available for a couple of years.

If you need a new computer that can take PCI-X cards, get a dual 2.7, they're still on the price list between the DC2.3 and the dual dual 2.5.

 

[minimax]

In most cases, HT will be faster on a single core system. You have the chance for parallelism, with little downside.

If you have more than one core, however, you have the situation where two active threads might be scheduled on logical CPUs that are in the same core - leaving the second core idle.

This will have much worse performance. Some systems are better as scheduling threads than others, but they'll all see this to some degree.

My rule-of-thumb is to enable HT on single-core systems. On multi-core systems, if I typically have more active threads than cores, I'll turn it on. If I have fewer threads, I'll disable HT

Ah yes that makes sense. i couldnt find the benchmarks from Tom's Hardware that showed those results, but you're right, i think they were dual core.

 

[Dopeyman]

Will VPC run a bit more faster on a dual-core PM?

 

[Tastannin]

Will VPC run a bit more faster on a dual-core PM?

It depends on how multi-threaded VPC is. I'm not sure where VPC stands with that currently, but if pushed, I'd say it's not very threaded. MS probably has no interest in improving that aspect anyhow.

 

[manu chao]

It still gets better performance (in optimized apps and multitasking) than 4 logical processors do, that is fact. With properly optimized apps and situations, it's much better than just having 4 logical processors.

Yes, and having 1 MB of L2 cache is also much better than having on only 512 KB.

Hyperthreading only helps to avoid cache misses. If the programm or the processor are so bad that you get a cache miss every second processor cycle, than having hyperthreading would be equivalent to having twice as many processors.

 

[illegalprelude]

In most cases, HT will be faster on a single core system. You have the chance for parallelism, with little downside.

If you have more than one core, however, you have the situation where two active threads might be scheduled on logical CPUs that are in the same core - leaving the second core idle.

This will have much worse performance. Some systems are better as scheduling threads than others, but they'll all see this to some degree.

My rule-of-thumb is to enable HT on single-core systems. On multi-core systems, if I typically have more active threads than cores, I'll turn it on. If I have fewer threads, I'll disable HT

Let me tell you this, HT is a joke.
I bought a Vaio about 3 years ago.
2.4 ghz (at the time, mind blowing)
1GB Ram
Radeon 9800 Pro
550 Catch?

Now, 3 months ago, i built the so called mother of all PC's
Pent 3.4HT (i think this chip set is 64 bit too, not like it matters, windows isnt 64)
1GB DDR2 Ram
Radeon X850
2MB L2 Cach

I swear to you, my system is no better. I do gaming, no differenec. Application response ex. viewing photos, program responce etc. No diff.

HT is not all that its cracked up to be and I think? I read somewhere that Intel is dropping HT. dont hold me to that.

Now, I must say, this thread suckz. I read 17 pages and I still want the new Dual Quad Core or whatever 2.5 😀

Sponsor me somebody cause I cant afford it 😎

 

[EricNau]

Let me tell you this, HT is a joke.
HT is not all that its cracked up to be and I think? I read somewhere that Intel is dropping HT. dont hold me to that.

Assuming HT stands for Hyper Threading (I hope to God it does otherwise I must be sounding like an idiot), I would have to agree that it is a joke. I've looked into what it actually does and what the differences are, and assuming what I read was right, it seems pointless. I read that (in simple terms) it just tricks the computer that it has dual-cores, and in theory that might allow the computer to multi-task better.
Sounded like a gimmick to me from the day it came out. (and it worked too, look at all the people with HT).

 

[AidenShaw]

don't kid yourself

If HT is a hoax, why are IBM and Sun using it in their server processors??
_________________________________________________

Pent 3.4HT (i think this chip set is 64 bit too, not like it matters, windows isnt 64)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx

And, unlike OSX's partial 64-bit hacks, XP 64 is a true 64-bit operating system.

?

 

[jaduffy108]

some AMD vs Intel info for ya...

Good to hear! I wouldn't mind (and in fact, fully expect) Apple to have some AMD chips in the mix in the future. Two suppliers are better than one.

>>Oh my.

I can only assume you mis-read what I wrote, then. AMD and Intel BOTH have their strengths, and I don't pretend to be a technical expert on them. But you say there is "no doubt Apple goofed" in choosing Intel, and I don't think it's as clear-cut as that. I'd be interested to hear more about why you're certain the Intel choice has to be the wrong one.

>>First, as I said previously...yes, based on current performance, AMD would clearly be a better choice. Basically, reality is.. Intel can not catch up within the next year. AMD is that far ahead of the game. A year in pc-land is an eon. That's a huge "head-start" if you ask me. To guess about vaporware performance beyond a year isn't better than consulting a crystal ball. Also, Intel's name recognition is not a good reason for choosing them imo....nor is Intel's bigger bank account. I want performance. Here's just one of MANY articles that spells it out. I'll post just the conclusion and summary. You can read the whole article at tomshardware if you wish. Just to say up front, Intel's "Merom" and "Conroe" ...DO... look promising...for late 06...early 07. Geez, that's a year away...again, an eon in pc land. Intel's not "bad", but the reality is Intel has some serious(!) catching up to do...and it ain't just this month. It's been like this way since April 2003 when AMD released the Opterons...and AMD is not resting on their a$$es while Intel tries to catch up! They know about conroe and merom..bensley platform, etc. My comments were made mostly in reference to Apple's BAD partnership management in the past...BAD choices...Moto, IBM..feuds with ATI...and I'm personally REALLY tired of Apple making me jump through hoops. Intel has brought many great technologies to market in the past. In my opinion, Intel's roadmap hype doesn't cut it... it's vaporware. Remember... their roadmap hype back in 2003 (strike 1)..04 (strike 2)..05 (strike 3)... also said..."we will be king"...and that did not materialize. I honestly support Apple's decision to go x86...Intel or AMD...I suggested it when OS X was launched many moons ago...everyone said..."Never!!"..and here we are...
Intel *may* prove me wrong...and i sincerely hope they do!

peace

From Tomshardware.com 10/17/05
"Intel's Next-Generation Server Promise"
Summary:
Intel's Xeon is certainly taking a beating from AMD's Opteron performance-wise, and the new dual-core Xeon Paxville likely won't make much of a difference. But Intel's upcoming Bensley platform launch next year could represent a new dawn in the era of x86 server processors--or so Intel says

Conclusion:
From what Intel keeps preaching, the new micro architecture is on track to regain both the performance crown and the performance-per-watt crown from AMD at the end of 2006. Since there is not much CPU information available to assess the plausibility of these claims, the only facts we can base our conclusion on for now are the details regarding the upcoming server platform.

First of all, we have to note that the future Xeon processors based on NetBurst and the 65-nm process very likely aren't going to make much of a difference. In many industry benchmarks such as the SPEC JBB, WEB2005 or TPC-C scenarios, the Opterons are far enough away to stay ahead.

Here we recommend checking out the server product information pages of the larger OEMs- these always include the industry standard benchmark results for comparison.

However, the new platform approach clearly is targeted at making server platforms more reliable, more robust, more flexible and overall more attractive - even though the performance advantage in the DP server space could easily remain with AMD.

Bensley is going to introduce a number of features that the competitor is either delivering later (virtualization) or not delivering by itself (Active Management, I/O acceleration), but in conjunction with third-party partners. Finally there is quad-channel memory, which may not necessarily be as fast as its name portends.
/end

 

[alien]

Getting a new Powermac

Well... I'm getting a new Powermac. I originally wanted to get the new 2.3 but it was a bit out of my price range. I ended up getting a the new 2 with 2.5 gigs of ram and the 6600 (not the LE). With my trade in it's only going to cost me $2,600 (CAD)... I guess that's still a bit expensive compared to the PC world, but I can't wait. It'll definitely be quite a big step up from what I'm currently using.

 

[slick316]

Well... I'm getting a new Powermac. I originally wanted to get the new 2.3 but it was a bit out of my price range. I ended up getting a the new 2 with 2.5 gigs of ram and the 6600 (not the LE). With my trade in it's only going to cost me $2,600 (CAD)... I guess that's still a bit expensive compared to the PC world, but I can't wait. It'll definitely be quite a big step up from what I'm currently using.

Trade in?

 

[iBug2]

Hey

Guys, which OS version is inside the new ones? They are shipping as of today so some people should receive them. Is it 10.4.2 or 10.4.3?

 

[alien]

Trade in?

Ya... trade in. I'm trading in my current computer and getting money back to put towards the new computer. You've never heard of that?

 

[slick316]

Ya... trade in. I'm trading in my current computer and getting money back to put towards the new computer. You've never heard of that?

No, never heard of that. Is it just a Canadian thing? (I see that you are in London, ON)
How much are they giving you?

 

[alien]

No, never heard of that. Is it just a Canadian thing? (I see that you are in London, ON)
How much are they giving you?

It's at an apple reseller. I don't know what it's like in other parts of the world, but here most places that sell apple computers (minus apple stores, and "big box" stores like Best Buy etc.) will take your old computer, give you a price for a trade-in and then knock it off the price of the new machine.

As for what they're giving me... let's just say that it's comparable to what you would get when you trade in a car (ie. not much). For my old machine I'm only getting around 500 bucks (other places offered 300). I'm not too sure if I could get more, but then again, I don't want the hassle to advertise in the paper or anywhere else.